Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

[Doug1]

Im shortening your name to NRI for future reference. Don't take it so harshly everyone starts out in exactly the same place.

"The inventors, who subscribe, constitute their generator, as follows: Several electromagnets are arranged opposing each other, and their opposite pole faces separated by a small distance. The cores of all these electromagnets are formed in such a way that they will magnetize and demagnetize quickly and not retain any residual magnetism. In the empty space remaining between the pole faces of the electromagnets of these two series, the induced wire passes in one piece, or several, or many. An excitatory current, intermittent, or alternating, actuates all the electromagnets, which are attached or in series, or in parallel, or as required, and in the induced circuit will arise currents comprising, together, the total generator current. That allows suppressing the mechanical force, since there is nothing which needs to be moved. The driving current, or is an independent current, which, if direct, must be interrupted or changed in sign alternately by any known method, or is a part of the total current of the generator, as it is done today in the current dynamos."

You dont have to be smart or clever to pay attention. I used the phrase before " to a hammer everything is nail." How is it done in a modern generator?

  " The cores of all these electromagnets are formed in such a way that they will magnetize and demagnetize quickly and not retain any residual magnetism."
   
    With the above stated ask yourself why is there residual magnetism in a generator.Why is it there? What does it do for or against the generator which has it?

     "Several electromagnets are arranged opposing each other, and their opposite pole faces separated by a small distance."

       Don't over think it.

[NRamaswami]

Yes..This is the difference between theoretical knowledge and Experimental observation based knowledge...One such example in our opinion is Daniel McFarland Cook device which is easy to see the missing component and how it would have worked to continuously oscillate the iron.

While cook says that he used only iron core, the description of the cook patent says that you just wave a iron rod to cause induction. Unless the iron rod is a powerful permanent magnet and the core is a pre-magnetized permanent magnet core this will not happen. It is in fact the easiest patent to replicate if our understanding is correct.

We will tell you later after testing it.

It is possible to take electricity out without using the secondary. Only experimental observations can give you this knowledge.

[hanon]

A post worth to take it into account again:

http://overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg469355/#msg469355

Note that the claims in this patent do not mention the polarity. Again a patent with the claims without defining the electromagnet polarity. Therefore the legal protection is again open to any polarity:

"Invention of an electric generator without using mechanical force, since nothing
moves, which produces the same effects of current dynamo-electric machines
thanks to several fixed electromagnets, excited by a discontinuous or
alternating current which creates an induction in the motionless induced circuit,
placed within the magnetic fields of the excitatory electromagnets. "

[NRamaswami]

Hanon

Claims must have antecedent support in specification. .

Claims are interprted and understood based on the wriien description in specification to avoid ambiguity.

Claims cannot stand on their own but must be supported by specification.

There is support for secondary to be placed between opposite poles only in the patent.

Do not confuse yourself.

Doug..I do not know..you may please explain it.

I will try to do a machine where no load is placed on secondary.

Regards

Ramaswami

[hanon]

I will try to do a machine where no load is placed on secondary.

But report the results in other thread. This is neither Figuera's design.

------

Have you read the link I posted before? I said that there are two possible translations, and both are 100% legally admisible.  The writing of the description is ambiguous : the "opposites poles at short distance" are both from the same electromagnet or are the poles from the two electromagnets? .Talking to you is like talking to a wall. You do not listen. I am afraid it could be a result of the radiation emitted by your device. I stop here communicating with you. IMHO a summary of your contribution to this thread: too many words, messy posts, too few principles, too much nonsense, and day by day further from Figuera's design, every post was different to the previous one, no single design may be extract from such a bunch of nonsense. Insanity posts. Answer to this post in order to get relaxed and then stop chatting with me in this thread.